If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

PR: But one of the disturbing calls that we have about David is David and the campground at the Strand.

DW: What about the campground at the Strand?

PR: Ah, there was a call that you were seen with a little girl.
(Is there a reason the caller wasn't called to the witness stand? Was this just another LIE by another member of SDPD? Is failing a polygraph test a requirement before being hired by SDPD?)

DW: Somebody is lying to you, because there was nobody there with me.

PR: Is that because you had already gotten rid of her?

DW: No, I'm saying that there was nothing there to see. There was just me. I watched a little TV, I sat out front, I was putzing around, I ate lunch.

Comment

In November 2002, while attending the Entomological Society of America (ESA) Annual Conference in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Drs. John Wallace and Jeffery Tomberlin were sitting at a near by café discussing a variety of topics that included recent rumblings among ESA entomologists concerning the results of the Danielle Van Dam murder case and the lack of consensus by the entomologists involved in the case.
(The only agreement they could come to was that Daninelle's body wasn't available until after the 5th of February. Why is that so hard for folks to understand or believe? Sure it exonerates Westerfield, but quality evidence is supposed to identify, not include or exclude.)

Dr. Bob Kimsey (UC Davis, Forensic Entomologist) would label these two later as Shakespeare’s Hungry young men, the two followed this conversation up with a discussion regarding the expense associated with such large conferences and the difficulty for students to attend and view all presentations on forensic entomology as well as attempt to network and meet the forensic entomologists involved with this research. At the time, scientific interaction as well as communication between the researchers and graduate students was low.

Fueled on caffeine, this conversation and the desire to bring this new discipline within entomology back to the core – the science involved inspired Wallace and Tomberlin to pen on a napkin the makings of the first stand alone conference on forensic entomology. Both Tomberlin and Wallace recognized from this hour long conversation that this conference had to be international and had to be solely focused on all aspects of forensic entomology.

"A lot of the disagreements involve a variation in one day, two days," said Richard Merritt, a certified forensic entomologist and professor at Michigan State University. "Not over a week and a half. If it's that big a time, someone screwed up."
(Perhaps the DAs office was forcing the evidence to prove the theory as opposed to the evidence leading to a theory.)

Bugs can tell forensic entomologists if a body's been moved, and bust alibis

By Lyndsay Winkley | 11 a.m. Jan. 10, 2015
snipped

How did insects help solve Danielle van Dam’s murder? The bugs said that LE had the wrong guy!

This can be seen from the article. It contains details of how insects helped solve the Martello and Brothers cases, but says little about the van Dam case, and that was that all the entomologists had different conclusions - and it then dismisses all that evidence as a “circus”. And then says that this case led to the creation of an association that helped establish guidelines. Which further damns the role of entomology in that case.

But I would add that it’s misleading to say that all the entomologists had different conclusions. There were differences in their start and end dates, but they were unanimous that Danielle’s body was most likely dumped around the middle of the month.

Comment

Q: IN PHOTOGRAPH B WOULD THAT BE THE STAIN YOU'RE POINTING TO THAT'S THE LEFTMOST OF THE THREE STAINS IN PHOTO B?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HAVE TOO MANY B'S AND C'S.
WHAT DID YOU DO -- FIRST OF ALL, HOW DID THOSE STAINS APPEAR TO YOU; WHAT DID THEY LOOK LIKE?
A: THEY WERE BROWNISHRED. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN WHAT DID THEY LOOK LIKE.

Comment

Faulkner:
Q BECAUSE IF A BODY IS PLACED AT THE LOCATION DEAD BUT WAS NOT A GUNSHOT VICTIM AND WAS NOT A STABBING VICTIM AND WAS NOT OPENED UP FROM ANY SORT OF TRAUMA OR INJURY, IN A NORMAL SITUATION YOU WOULD EXPECT THE BUGS TO GO TO THE HEAD OPENINGS, CORRECT?
A YES.

Q IN THIS SITUATION DID YOU GO TO THE AUTOPSY?
A YES, I DID.

Q DID YOU SEE BUG INFESTATION AS YOU WOULD EXPECT IN A NORMAL SITUATION IN THE HEAD REGION?
A NORMAL IS KIND OF A BAD WORD TO USE. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IN LOOKING AT THE DECOMPOSITION, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED A LOT OF INSECT ACTIVITY IN THE HEAD AREA.

Q DID YOU SEE ANY?
A NO.

Q DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS IS NOT, AGAIN FORGIVE MY USE OF TERM, A NORMAL SITUATION, AN EXPECTED SITUATION?
A FOR ME IT WAS ATYPICAL.

Q ATYPICAL MEANS NOT TYPICAL?
A CORRECT.

Q AND THAT MEANS SOMETHING IS GOING ON HERE THAT YOU CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR?
A I DON'T ACCOUNT TOO MUCH FOR, AGAIN, HUMAN DECOMPOSITION. I ACCOUNT FOR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF INSECTS. BUT OFTENTIMES IN DEATH INVESTIGATIONS, AGAIN, THE HEAD AREA IS USUALLY HEAVILY INFESTED WITH INSECT LARVAE.

Q AND IT WASN'T HERE, WAS IT?
A NO.

Q DID IN FACT IT CAUSE YOU TO THINK THAT PERHAPS AT LEAST THE HEAD REGION WAS COVERED AT SOME TIME?
A IT MADE ME QUESTION THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT PART OF THE BODY TO INSECTS.

Q AND TO AFFECT THE AVAILABILITY, IF A SHEET, BLANKET, TOWEL, ANYTHING WERE TO COVER THAT HEAD, WOULD THAT LIMIT THE AVAILABILITY OF THE HEAD?
A WELL, ANYTHING COVERING IT WOULD AGAIN EITHER SLOW DOWN OR COULD POTENTIALLY EXCLUDE INSECTS FROM GETTING TO THAT PART OF THE BODY.

Q THAT WOULD BE ONE EXPLANATION FOR NO ACTIVITY IN THE HEAD REGION FOR THE BUGS.
A YES.

Comment

Rodriguez:
Q and you were aware, then, that in the time window 13 february to 28 february or 12 february to 28 february that the conditions were ripe for the growth of blow flies, given the ambient temperatures?
A yes.

Q when you were provided with information concerning mr. Faulkner's views on the entomology, were you also advised that mr. Faulkner spoke with law enforcement representatives and specifically asked them whether or not they could find any evidence that the body had been covered?
A yes, i do believe reading that.

Q and do you recall that there is no evidence or there was no evidence provided to faulkner?

Mr. Dusek: Objection. Hearsay. Not a basis for an opinion.

The court: The form of the question, sustained.

By mr. Feldman:

Q with regard to your opinion, you considered the fact, did you, that faulkner was told by law enforcement that there was no evidence that there was anything covering the body?
A i believe there was no mention of the body being covered or i do not recall seeing any evidence to that fact.

Q well, do you recall -- did you read mr. Faulkner's testimony, sir?
A yes, i did.

Q do you recall mr. Faulkner testifying that he asked law enforcement whether or not there was any evidence of the body being covered?
A i believe he did ask that question.

Q and do you also recall him saying that law enforcement assured him there was no such evidence?

Mr. Dusek: Objection. Hearsay.

The court: Sustained as to what he was told.

By mr. Feldman:

Q as to rendering your opinion as to the post-mortem interval, did you take into consideration faulkner's testimony that after he checked with law enforcement there was nothing that was covering the body?
A yes, i did take that into consideration.

Q you also i think testified on direct examination that one of the things you would want to consider is whether or not the body had been moved in forming your opinions as to the post-mortem interval, is that right, sir?
A could you be more specific, please?

Q i'm asking you -- okay. Let me put it to you a different way.
Is one of the circumstances that you consider in rendering your opinion as to the post-mortem interval the fact or the lack of fact that a body was moved from a location to another location?
A if there was evidence of that that could show me it had been in another location that had differential environmental conditions that would have produced changes in the decomposition, i would have certainly taken that into effect.

Q i'm sorry. You've just used a term differential in conjunction with environmental conditions. I don't understand what you mean by differential environmental conditions.
A grossly different that -- causing different changes than one would see from one place to another. In other words, as i gave the example of an individual that had been placed in storage, for example, in a freezer and held for hours, days, months, and then later placed somewhere else.

Comment

A if there was evidence of that that could show me it had been in another location that had differential environmental conditions that would have produced changes in the decomposition, i would have certainly taken that into effect.

...Q DO YOU SEE ANY SIGNS IN THIS CASE FROM YOUR OBSERVATIONS THAT THE BODY WAS ONLY -- AT MULTIPLE PLACES AFTER IT WAS DEAD?
A IN REVIEWING SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE WAS -- AND ALSO IN REVIEWING THE REPORTS, WHAT I SAW WHAT APPEARED TO BE AREAS OF DECOMPOSITIONAL FLUID ON THE TRAIL AWAY FROM WHERE THE REMAINS FINALLY LAY, AND THAT IS A POSSIBILITY I THINK ALSO.
(My guess is that Rodriguez didn't view any of the photos which the body had been in multiple places after death.)

Comment

Entomology
The science of entomology was a major focus during the trial.

Three entomologists were consulted by the defense, and all testified that flies first laid eggs on Van Dam's body sometime in mid-February, long after Westerfield was under police surveillance.

However, cross-examination by the prosecution demonstrated a lack of consensus among the entomologists on several fronts.

Entomologist David Faulkner conceded that his time estimate (Feb. 16-18.) was based mostly on the fly larvae (but the absence of beetle grubs further supported his conclusion about the post-mortem interval), and that his research could not determine the maximum amount of time Danielle's body was outside and subject to decomposition.
(If she was killed at Dehesa, he did present a maximum. It was the same date as the minimum.)

Entomologist Neal Haskell used a weather chart prepared by forensic artist James Gripp, stating that the warm temperatures made it likely that insects immediately colonized Danielle's corpse.

The third entomologist, Dr. Robert Hall, estimated that initial insect infestation occurred between February 12 and February 23, but acknowledged that the insect infestation of the corpse wasn't "typical" because so few maggots were found in the skull.

The prosecution brought in a fourth entomologist, Dr. Madison Lee Goff, who testified that the infestation may have occurred between February 9 and February 14, but stressed that other factors may have delayed insect arrival.

He explained that a covering such as a blanket might have initially kept flies at bay; however no covering was found, and Goff contended that the longest delay by such a shroud would be two and a half days.
(Without using an asterisk, 4 entomologists studied the insect evidence and concluded Danielle's body was attacked by the insects, AFTER February 5th. It's that simple, it's that obvious.)

...Mystery witness:
Q NOW, YOU KNEW COMING INTO COURT TODAY THAT BOTH FAULKNER AND HASKELL HAD TESTIFIED THAT IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, AND THEY MEANT TIME OF DEATH AS IT WAS DEFINED IN OUR COURTROOM, WAS ABOUT TEN DAYS, TEN TO TWELVE TO FOURTEEN DAYS, AND I COULD BE REMEMBERING INCORRECTLY, IT'S ON THE CHART, PRIOR TO THE RECOVERY OF DANIELLE VAN DAM. YOU KNEW THAT.

MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: AS TO THE DEFINITION OF THE INTERVAL, SUSTAINED.

BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q YOU WERE AWARE THAT MR. FAULKNER TOLD US THAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WHICH HE DEFINED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH THE WORDS TIME OF DEATH WAS APPROXIMATELY I THINK SIXTEEN DAYS BEFORE, FOURTEEN TO SIXTEEN DAYS. YOU'VE GOT THE NOTES IN FRONT OF YOU.

Comment

Dorie Savage prelim...
Q. It says -- I indicated detective Joseph Howie, date of this report, 2-12-02, and I'm specifically directing your attention to the last paragraph on page 2 which specifically reads, "I viewed the entire residence, and most notably were threebrightred-colored stains about half the size of a pencil eraser located along the walls of the staircase."

Comment

Savage:
Q. AND ONCE YOU OBTAINED -- YOU CAREFULLY SEARCHED THE 4-RUNNER, DIDN'T YOU?
A. ME AND FORENSIC SPECIALIST INZUNZA AND DETECTIVE HOWIE.

Q. OH, SO THIS TIME NOW THERE WAS A DETECTIVE WORKING, TOO, THAT YOU RECALL, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. OH, YES.

Q. I'M SORRY. YOU SAID OH, YES. DOES THAT IMPLY THAT WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE WORK AT THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE YOU WERE ALSO WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PARTICULAR DETECTIVE?
A. YES.

Q. AND WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS -- I DON'T KNOW, GIVING YOU DIRECTION OR --
A. ON ONE -- ONE OF THE BASE HE WAS.

Q. WHICH DAY, PLEASE?
A. ON STARTING ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY.

Q. WHAT I WAS WONDERING, THOUGH, WAS ON THE DAY THAT YOU INSPECTED THE 4-RUNNER THAT YOU ALSO WERE AT THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE, THE SAME DAY, HUH?
A. ON FEBRUARY 5TH DETECTIVE HOWIE WAS ALSO THE DETECTIVE.
(Dorie and Howie were in the van Dam crime scene and Westerfield's 4-runner?)

Q. WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 2ND?
A. NO.

Q. TO WHOM DID YOU GIVE THE SHELL CASING?
A. I IMPOUNDED THE SHELL CASING.

Q. FROM WHOM DID YOU IMPOUND OR RECEIVE THE SHELL CASING?
A. I COLLECTED IT.

Q. WHO WAS WITH YOU? WHICH DETECTIVE IS REALLY WHAT I'M MEAN?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE.

BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIME PERIOD WHERE YOU SEIZED THE SHELL CASING THAT HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT THE DAY BEFORE, WHICH DETECTIVE WAS PRESENT WITH YOU, IF YOU RECALL?
A. DETECTIVE HOWIE.

Comment

Dorie Savage prelim...
Q. It says -- I indicated detective Joseph Howie, date of this report, 2-12-02, and I'm specifically directing your attention to the last paragraph on page 2 which specifically reads, "I viewed the entire residence, and most notably were threebrightred-colored stains about half the size of a pencil eraser located along the walls of the staircase."

Q. I'M SORRY. YOU SAID OH, YES. DOES THAT IMPLY THAT WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE WORK AT THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE YOU WERE ALSO WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PARTICULAR DETECTIVE?
A. YES.

Q. AND WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS -- I DON'T KNOW, GIVING YOU DIRECTION OR --
A. ON ONE -- ONE OF THE BASE HE WAS.

Q. WHICH DAY, PLEASE?
A. ON STARTING ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY.

Q. WHAT I WAS WONDERING, THOUGH, WAS ON THE DAY THAT YOU INSPECTED THE 4-RUNNER THAT YOU ALSO WERE AT THE VAN DAM RESIDENCE, THE SAME DAY, HUH?
A. ON FEBRUARY 5TH DETECTIVE HOWIE WAS ALSO THE DETECTIVE.

Q. WAS DETECTIVE HOWIE THE DETECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 2ND?
A. NO.

(What did Howie notice on February 4th at the van Dam crime scene?
"I viewed the entire residence, and most notably were threebrightred-colored stains about half the size of a pencil eraser located along the walls of the staircase."

Bright red blood stains in the staircase Monday around 11 am? How did they get there? When did they get there?
Since Damon and Brenda were allowed back into the crime scene on Sunday, they must have some idea of how bright red blood stains ended up on the wall of the stairwell in THREE different locations? Bright red bloodstains with NO human DNA. Layla again?
My first impression was Howie noticed the stains on Saturday the 2nd, not Monday the 4th.)

Comment

Goff:
THE WITNESS: WHEN I LOOKED AT THE SCENE AND AUTOPSY PHOTOS, IT APPEARED THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF DEFECT TO THE ABDOMEN.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS AND SCENE PHOTOS, IT APPEARED THERE HAD BEEN LARGE QUANTITIES OF FLESH REMOVED FROM THE CHEST AREA. I WAS NOT THERE WATCHING FOR SOMETHING TO FEED. BUT LOOKING AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE IMPRESSION WHICH I RECEIVED WAS IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO CARNIVORE ACTIVITY THAT I HAD OBSERVED ON PIGS THAT WE USED IN STUDIES AT THE F. B. I. ACADEMY IN QUANTICO.
(Just depends upon what fits your agenda.)

Comment

She ended the call with this last question, she said, "Why are you doing this?"
I said, "the van Dams are not telling the truth about Danielle".
(Says it all for a "truther". What's the opposite of a truther? A LIARER?